Improving Detection of Multiple Sclerosis Lesions in the Posterior Fossa Using an Optimized 3D-FLAIR Sequence at 3T

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Geurts JJG,
   3. Calabrese M,
   4. Fisher E, et al

   . Measurement and clinical effect of grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2012;11:1082–92 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70230-2 pmid:23153407

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Klaver R,
   3. De Vries HE,
   4. Schenk GJ, et al

   . Grey matter damage in multiple sclerosis: a pathology perspective. Prion 2013;7:66–75 doi:10.4161/pri.23499 pmid:23324595

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Messina S,
   3. Patti F

   . Gray matters in multiple sclerosis: cognitive impairment and structural MRI. Mult Scler Int 2014;2014:609694 doi:10.1155/2014/609694 pmid:24587905

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Pirko I,
   3. Lucchinetti CF,
   4. Sriram S, et al

   . Gray matter involvement in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2007;68:634–42 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000250267.85698.7a pmid:17325269

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Runge VM,
   3. Price AC,
   4. Kirshner HS, et al

   . Magnetic resonance imaging of multiple sclerosis: a study of pulse-technique efficacy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143:1015–26 doi:10.2214/ajr.143.5.1015 pmid:6333143

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. McDonald WI,
   3. Compston A,
   4. Edan G, et al

   . Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–27 doi:10.1002/ana.1032 pmid:11456302

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Thompson AJ,
   3. Banwell BL,
   4. Barkhof F, et al

   . Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:162–73 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2 pmid:29275977

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Barkhof F,
   3. Filippi M,
   4. Miller DH, et al

   . Comparison of MRI criteria at first presentation to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. Brain J Neurol 1997;120(Pt 11):2059–69 doi:10.1093/brain/120.11.2059 pmid:9397021

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Tintoré M,
   3. Rovira A,
   4. Martínez MJ, et al

   . Isolated demyelinating syndromes: comparison of different MR imaging criteria to predict conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:702–06 pmid:10782781

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Rovira À,
    3. Wattjes MP,
    4. Tintoré M, et al

    ; MAGNIMS study group. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11:471–82 doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106 pmid:26149978

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Cotton F,
    3. Kremer S,
    4. Hannoun S, et al

    ; Imaging Working Group of the Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques. OFSEP, a nationwide cohort of people with multiple sclerosis: consensus minimal MRI protocol. J Neuroradiol 2015;42:133–40 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2014.12.001 pmid:25660217

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Traboulsee A,
    3. Simon JH,
    4. Stone L, et al

    . Revised Recommendations of the Consortium of MS Centers Task Force for a Standardized MRI Protocol and Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:394–401 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4539 pmid:26564433

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Simon JH,
    3. Li D,
    4. Traboulsee A, et al

    . Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:455–61 pmid:16484429

    FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Falini A,
    4. Arnold DL, et al

    ; White Matter Study Group. Magnetic resonance techniques for the in vivo assessment of multiple sclerosis pathology: consensus report of the white matter study group. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:669–75 doi:10.1002/jmri.20336 pmid:15906322

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Gramsch C,
    3. Nensa F,
    4. Kastrup O, et al

    . Diagnostic value of 3D fluid attenuated inversion recovery sequence in multiple sclerosis. Acta Radiol 1987 2015;56:622–27 pmid:24867222

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Tan IL,
    3. van Schijndel RA,
    4. Pouwels PJW, et al

    . Serial isotropic three-dimensional fast FLAIR imaging: using image registration and subtraction to reveal active multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:777–82 doi:10.2214/ajr.179.3.1790777 pmid:12185063

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Barkhof F,
    3. Pouwels PJ,
    4. Wattjes MP

    . The Holy Grail in diagnostic neuroradiology: 3T or 3D? Eur Radiol 2011;21:449–56 doi:10.1007/s00330-010-2034-x pmid:21181406

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Polak P,
    3. Magnano C,
    4. Zivadinov R, et al

    . 3D FLAIRED: 3D fluid attenuated inversion recovery for enhanced detection of lesions in multiple sclerosis. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:874–81 doi:10.1002/mrm.23289 pmid:22139997

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Moraal B,
    3. Roosendaal SD,
    4. Pouwels PJW, et al

    . Multi-contrast, isotropic, single-slab 3D MR imaging in multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2311–20 doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1009-7 pmid:18509658

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Gawne-Cain ML,
    3. O'Riordan JI,
    4. Thompson AJ, et al

    . Multiple sclerosis lesion detection in the brain: a comparison of fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and conventional T2-weighted dual spin echo. Neurology 1997;49:364–70 doi:10.1212/WNL.49.2.364 pmid:9270563

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Tan IL,
    3. Pouwels PJW,
    4. van Schijndel RA, et al

    . Isotropic 3D fast FLAIR imaging of the brain in multiple sclerosis patients: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2002;12:559–67 doi:10.1007/s00330-001-1170-8 pmid:11870470

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Bink A,
    3. Schmitt M,
    4. Gaa J, et al

    . Detection of lesions in multiple sclerosis by 2D FLAIR and single-slab 3D FLAIR sequences at 3.0 T: initial results. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1104–10 doi:10.1007/s00330-005-0107-z pmid:16425026

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Iannucci G,
    3. Rovaris M,
    4. Giacomotti L, et al

    . Correlation of multiple sclerosis measures derived from T2-weighted, T1-weighted, magnetization transfer, and diffusion tensor MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1462–67 pmid:11559491

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Nelson F,
    3. Poonawalla A,
    4. Hou P, et al

    . 3D MPRAGE improves classification of cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2008;14:1214–19 doi:10.1177/1352458508094644 pmid:18952832

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Vural G,
    3. Keklikoğlu HD,
    4. Temel Ş, et al

    . Comparison of double inversion recovery and conventional magnetic resonance brain imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis and relations with disease disability. Neuroradiol J 2013;26:133–42 doi:10.1177/197140091302600201 pmid:23859234

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Wattjes MP,
    3. Lutterbey GG,
    4. Gieseke J, et al

    . Double inversion recovery brain imaging at 3T: diagnostic value in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:54–59 pmid:17213424

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. Geurts JJ,
    3. Pouwels PJ,
    4. Uitdehaag BM, et al

    . Intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis: improved detection with 3D double inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 2005;236:254–60 doi:10.1148/radiol.2361040450 pmid:15987979

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Nelson F,
    3. Poonawalla AH,
    4. Hou P, et al

    . Improved identification of intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis with phase-sensitive inversion recovery in combination with fast double inversion recovery MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1645–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0645 pmid:17885241

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    2. Favaretto A,
    3. Poggiali D,
    4. Lazzarotto A, et al

    . The parallel analysis of phase sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) and double inversion recovery (DIR) images significantly improves the detection of cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS) since clinical onset. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127805 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127805 pmid:26010425

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Minneboo A,
    3. Barkhof F,
    4. Polman CH, et al

    . Infratentorial lesions predict long-term disability in patients with initial findings suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2004;61:217–21 doi:10.1001/archneur.61.2.217 pmid:14967769

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Quattrocchi CC,
    3. Cherubini A,
    4. Luccichenti G, et al

    . Infratentorial lesion volume correlates with sensory functional system in multiple sclerosis patients: a 3.0-Tesla MRI study. Radiol Med 2010;115:115–24 doi:10.1007/s11547-009-0477-7 pmid:20017006

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Bossuyt PM,
    3. Reitsma JB,
    4. Bruns DE, et al

    ; STARD Group. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015;277:826–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151516 pmid:26509226

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Goerner FL,
    3. Clarke GD

    . Measuring signal-to-noise ratio in partially parallel imaging MRI. Med Phys 2011;38:5049–57 doi:10.1118/1.3618730 pmid:21978049

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    The R Foundation. The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed April 23, 2017.
35. 35.↵
    2. Landis JR,
    3. Koch GG

    . An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977;33:363–74 doi:10.2307/2529786 pmid:884196

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Eng J

    . Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology 2003;227:309–13 doi:10.1148/radiol.2272012051 pmid:12732691

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    2. Okuda T,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. Shigematsu Y, et al

    . Brain lesions: when should fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery sequences be used in MR evaluation? Radiology 1999;212:793–98 doi:10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99se07793 pmid:10478248

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Hashemi RH,
    3. Bradley WG Jr.,
    4. Chen DY, et al

    . Suspected multiple sclerosis: MR imaging with a thin-section fast FLAIR pulse sequence. Radiology 1995;196:505–10 doi:10.1148/radiology.196.2.7617868 pmid:7617868

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    2. Gaitán MI,
    3. Yañes P,
    4. Sati P, et al

    . Optimal detection of infratentorial lesions with a combined dual-echo MRI sequence: “PT2.” Mult Scler 2016;22:1367–70 doi:10.1177/1352458515615226 pmid:26552729

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Wiggermann V,
    3. Hernández-Torres E,
    4. Traboulsee A, et al

    . FLAIR2: a combination of FLAIR and T2 for improved MS lesion detection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:259–65 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4514 pmid:26450539

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
41. 41.↵
    2. Bevan CJ,
    3. Cree BA

    . Disease activity free status: a new end point for a new era in multiple sclerosis clinical research? JAMA Neurol 2014;71:269–70 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.5486 pmid:24395449

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Rydberg JN,
    3. Riederer SJ,
    4. Rydberg CH, et al

    . Contrast optimization of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:868–77 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910340612 pmid:8598814

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Redpath TW,
    3. Smith FW

    . Technical note: use of a double inversion recovery pulse sequence to image selectively grey or white brain matter. Br J Radiol 1994;67:1258–63 doi:10.1259/0007-1285-67-804-1258 pmid:7874427

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    2. Wattjes MP,
    3. Harzheim M,
    4. Kuhl CK, et al

    . Does high-field MR imaging have an influence on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes according to current diagnostic MR imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1794–98 pmid:16971638

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Rocca MA,
    4. Ciccarelli O, et al

    ; MAGNIMS Study Group. MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines. Lancet Neurol 2016;15:292–303 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00393-2 pmid:26822746

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Noyes K,
    3. Weinstock-Guttman B

    . Impact of diagnosis and early treatment on the course of multiple sclerosis. Am J Manag Care 2013;19(17 Suppl):s321–31 pmid:24494633

    PubMed
47. 47.↵
    2. Tur C,
    3. Thompson AJ

    . Early accurate diagnosis crucial in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner 2015;259:21–7, 2–3 pmid:26591653

    PubMed
48. 48.↵
    2. Tintore M,
    3. Rovira A,
    4. Arrambide G, et al

    . Brainstem lesions in clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology 2010;75:1933–38 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181feb26f pmid:21098409

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
49. 49.↵
    2. Preziosa P,
    3. Rocca MA,
    4. Mesaros S, et al

    . Relationship between damage to the cerebellar peduncles and clinical disability in multiple sclerosis. Radiology 2014;271:822–30 doi:10.1148/radiol.13132142 pmid:24555637

    CrossRefPubMed